Do I need to put sun cream on my 6mo this time of year?

[Bumperlicioso]

Just wondering if I should be putting suncream on the baby when outside. It's only March after all, but really warm.

DS had a hat and factor 50 on yesterday as he has inherited my super pale skin. DH complains that "he'll never get any colour" but i know the only colour he will go without suncream is red like me I didn't wear sun cream yesterday and have a nice set of red shoulders.

Surely sun cream doesn't stop the vit D?!

Obviously, if you are out in the sun all day then you would be better off with sunscreen than without if you are fair enough to burn in whatever given sun. But it would be better to get some morning and afternoon sun and then to avoid midday-2pm (or 11-3pm in Summer).

Regarding the risk of cancer and sunscreens, try here for the New York Times:

www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/health/22well.html

sorry, but the environmental working group report is behind a pay wall seemingly.

Regarding lack of sun and link to cancer, I went to a talk at the BMA last year with a leading epidemiologist and that was the basis of his presentation. I have not got time to search out the papers right now but I am sure you can google them if you try.

Have a look at these stat though:

www.wcrf-uk.org/cancer_prevention/health_professionals/uk_cancer_statistics.php

You will see that cancer rates are lowest where the sun is highest in the UK - and less in the East which gets more hours of sunshine than the cloudy West. I am afraid if you are in the North West then you are most at risk of cancers due to lack of sunshine. As skin cancer only accounts for 4% of cancer cases, then overall you can conclude that sun exposure reduces your risk of cancer ( although it undoubtedly raises your risk of skin cancer). The table linked to does not have much analysis, as obviously there are other factors than sunlight at play, but I have been to several lectures by eminent scientists on this and so I am sure if you dig around you will find the research. Suncream manufacturers will clearly only focus on providing stats relating to skin cancer as selling suncream makes them money. They don't mention the other cancers.

The sun also reduces your chances of acquiring immunosuppressant conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis although nobody is quite sure of the mechanism .....(this from a talk I went to at Cambridge University given by the Head of Medical Sciences)

In addition to the disbenefit of avoiding sunshine and its health benefits, personally, I am not keen on any benzene derivatives on my skin, and def not oxybenzone. I went to a talk at the Royal Institution recently, given by skin care researchers who were sponsored by a suncream manufacturer, and even they admitted that it is better to get some sun, stay in the shade when the sun is strongest and to only use sunscreen when you have no option but to be out in the sun at midday (eg, I suppose, a decision to play golf all day).

Anyway, it worries me when parents slather sunscreen onto their children at the first sign of sun. Preventing sun exposure so drastically is not supported by medical evidence or by common sense (we have evolved over millions of years without sunscreen). Even rickets is now making a comeback....

As skin cancer only accounts for 4% of cancer cases, then overall you can conclude that sun exposure reduces your risk of cancer

I don't think that is an accurate assumption to make based on the information provided.

Further info for those who wanted citations about the benefit of sunshine in preventing cancer (although it causes skin damage):

This was the talk at the Royal Institution:

www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1083

Sadly, the selfsame frequencies that cause skin damage are the ones that provide the health benefits so, as with all things in life, moderation is the answer. It is possible that redheads are prevalent in northern parts of Britain precisely because they are better at absorbing what few rays in this part of the spectrum that there are. We need sun.

The talk at the BMA was one sponsored by the Weizmann Institute, given on 9 March 2011 and was on the topic of cancer and public health. There were 3 speakers but I think the point about the correlation between sun exposure and cancer (in a good way) was made by Professor Sir Michael Marmot.

I know it may be hard to accept my message (as we are bombarded by pharmaceutical company message, then printed in newspapers on the back of press releases by journalists who are not scientifically litereate) about the protection sunscreens offer against skin cancer (and even that is in some doubt) but please do not deny normal amounts of everyday sunshine to your children. OBVIOUSLY, don't let them burn, and remember that if you move latitude, the sun's strength can be radically different.

not2
"I am afraid if you are in the North West then you are most at risk of cancers due to lack of sunshine."

Which cancers are you referring to?

all cancers, looked at as a total risk (although not necessarily for each and every one eg skin cancer and breast cancer are exceptions but the OVERALL risk of developing cancer is greatest for women in the North West).

See the chart most of the way down this page, for geographical distribution of cancers in the UK

www.wcrf-uk.org/cancer_prevention/health_professionals/uk_cancer_statistics.php#cancer4

The World Cancer Research Fund says:

"In women the overall cancer rate was about 10 per cent higher in the north-west and south-west compared with London, the east and south-east."

Look elsewhere on the page to find the most common cancers for women (breast, lung, bowel and endometrium but note that if breast cancer is taken in isolation, it is most common in the South West ).

whenskiesaregrey Yes, suncream sadly blocks the absorption of Vitamin D which happens below the outer layer of the epidermis when sunshine penetrates it (which is prevented by sun cream). Sadly, the same wavelengths that cause skin damage are the same wavelengths that we need to manufacture vitamin D.

In the north west women smoke & drink more and generally have a poorer diet (I live in Salford) which are also contributory to cancers, rather than just malabsorption of vitamin D (not saying your info is wrong, just some other factors may also need to be taken into consideration as well).

I put cream on my 12m DS today. I am now sunburnt so I'm glad I did put some on him. I am aware too little exposure to the sun can cause rickets but with 2 parents having practically transparent skin, I am possibly a bit over-cautious with DS.

It was very hot here today though!

not2
I think you might be confusing association with causation.

Yes, there are other factors at play which need to be teased out but it's not ME that was postulating causation to explain the association between lack of high frequency UV and cancer rates, it's leading research scientists including Professor Sir Michael Marmot who is a professor of epidemiology so has (presumably) analysed the figures. I can't pretend I have checked all his data and his methods, of course. I agree that it is always important to disentangle association and causation. That's why I am a fan of Bayesian methodology, methodsandmaterials.

When DD was not mobile I would just try to keep her in the shade. A bit of sun is good for you but I would not risk my child being burnt. There are plenty of non hot days when she can make up her vitamin D. It's not all about skin cancer. I live in the north west and burn very easily. I'm conscious of skin cancer but I also dont want to look like a well worn leather in a few years

Interesting debate, thanks for the input people. DS and I were inside between midday and 3pm anyway for lunch and his nap, it was 11-12 that he was playing in the unshaded playground so I was a bit concerned. Unfortunately I think we are at the end of the nice weather now so this discussion may be academic for now.

Well I am happy that we have enough sun light throughout the year that I will put sun cream on DS on days where he will burn without it. Why would I want him to burn? And he will, he is pale.

This is a very well informed discussion! V interesting, too. I am slightly concerned about my DS but do want him to make his own vit D. We have super-health-food-shop (read 'expensive') benzo.... erm whatever that was you said, not2 free suncream. For later in the year, that is.

Anyway, dying to ask not2 - this is not just a hobby of yours, is it? What is it you do?

not2
I'm very pleased that you have found your preferred method of statistical analysis. This is excellent news for all of Mumsnet.

But this is what you said:

You will see that cancer rates are lowest where the sun is highest in the UK - and less in the East which gets more hours of sunshine than the cloudy West. I am afraid if you are in the North West then you are most at risk of cancers due to lack of sunshine. As skin cancer only accounts for 4% of cancer cases, then overall you can conclude that sun exposure reduces your risk of cancer ( although it undoubtedly raises your risk of skin cancer).

That's not just postulating causation; that's practically confirming it. And I seriously doubt that conclusion came from any epidemiologist or statistician worth their salt.

Anyway, for anyone after good advice on staying safe in the sun, from people who actually know what they're talking about.. Please visit this page.

The information there is independent and evidence-based.

methods shrug. There is not room on a post to cite full evidence so shorthand is called for. I expect my Cambridge MA in Natural Sciences and my ongoing active interest in cancer research actually signify nothing. It doesn't bother me much who pays attention to me but I am happy to put the information out there. For those who are less opinionated, they may notice that your link refers to skin cancer. There, I am with you - the sun causes skin cancer. It also protects you from almost every other form of cancer (the 96% of cancers out there). i wouldn't burn though, personally. One minimum erythemal dose (MED) is plenty.